Olfactory camouflage and communication in birds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smell is a sensory modality that is rarely considered in birds, but evidence is mounting that olfaction is an important aspect of avian behaviour and ecology. The uropygial gland produces an odoriferous secretion (preen oil) that can differ seasonally and between the sexes. These differences are hypothesized to function in olfactory camouflage, i.e. minimizing detection by nest predators (olfactory crypsis hypothesis), and/or intraspecific olfactory communication, particularly during breeding (sex semiochemical hypothesis). However, evidence for seasonal and sex differences in preen oil is mixed, with some studies finding differences and others not, and direct evidence for the putative function(s) of seasonal variation and sex differences in preen oil remains limited. We conducted a systematic review of the evidence for such changes in preen oil chemical composition, finding seasonal differences in 95% of species (57/60 species in 35 studies) and sex differences in 47% of species (28/59 species in 46 studies). We then conducted phylogenetic comparative analyses using data from 59 bird species to evaluate evidence for both the olfactory crypsis and sex semiochemical hypotheses. Seasonal differences were more likely in the incubating than non-incubating sex in ground-nesting species, but were equally likely regardless of incubation strategy in non-ground-nesting species. This result supports the olfactory crypsis hypothesis, if ground nesters are more vulnerable to olfactorily searching predators than non-ground nesters. Sex differences were more likely in species with uniparental than biparental incubation and during breeding than non-breeding, consistent with both the olfactory crypsis and sex semiochemical hypotheses. At present, the data do not allow us to disentangle these two hypotheses, but we provide recommendations that will enable researchers to do so.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".